42. HEIRS OF PAULINO ATIENZA vs. ESPIDOL, G.R. NO.

180665
Statement of Facts
On August 12, 2002 the Atienzas and respondent Domingo P. Espidol entered into a
contract to sell a land with a down payment. They agreed on a price, payable in three
installments.
When the petitioners demanded payment of the second installment of P1,750,000
respondent offered to pay P500,000 in the meantime as he is not able to pay in full. The
petitioners rejected the offer. Claiming that respondent breached his obligation, the
petitioners filed a complaint for the annulment of their agreement with damages before
the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
Issue
Whether or not the petitioners were entitled to the cancellation of the contract to sell
on the ground of the respondents failure to pay the second installment when it fell due.
Held
In a contract to sell, the ownership is, by agreement, retained by the seller and is not
to pass to the vendee until full payment of the purchase price. Petitioners are to reserve
the property agreed upon in the contract for the respondent. As such time the respondent
failed to pay within the period provided in their agreement, the petitioners are relieved of
any obligation to hold the property in reserve for the respondent. Hence, the petitioners
are entitled to the cancellation to relieve themselves of any liability should they decide to
sell the property to someone else.
43. REYES vs. TUPARAN, G.R. NO. 188064, June 1, 2011
Statement of Facts
Petitioner mortgaged a residential and commercial lot to Farmers Savings Bank and
Loan Bank, Inc. (FSL Bank) to secure a loan. Petitioner then decided to sell her real
properties so she could liquidate her bank loan and finance her businesses. As a gesture of
friendship, respondent verbally offered to conditionally buy petitioner's real properties.
The parties and FSL Bank executed a Deed of Conditional Sale of Real Properties with
Assumption of Mortgage.
Respondent, however, defaulted in the payment of her obligations on their due dates.
Instead of paying the amounts due in lump sum on their respective maturity dates,
respondent paid petitioner in small amounts from time to time.
Respondent countered, among others, that the tripartite agreement was a pure and
absolute contract of sale with a term period, and that she successfully rescued the
properties from definite foreclosure.

Issue
Whether the agreement is a contract to sell and not a contract of sale.
Held
It is a contract to sell. The title and ownership of the subject properties remains with
the petitioner until the respondent fully pays the balance of the purchase price and the
assumed mortgage obligation. Thereafter, FSL Bank shall then issue the corresponding
deed of cancellation of mortgage and the petitioner shall execute the corresponding deed
of absolute sale in favor of the respondent.
Accordingly, the petitioner's obligation to sell the subject properties becomes
demandable only upon the happening of the positive suspensive condition, which is the
respondent's full payment of the purchase price.
44. SPS. SANTOS vs. CA, G.R. NO. 120820, August 1, 2000
Statement of Facts
The spouses Santos owned a house and lot which were mortgaged with the Rural
Bank of Salinas, Inc. to secure a loan. When the bank sent respondents a letter demanding
payment of unpaid interest and other charges, Rosalinda offered to sell the house and lot
to Carmen Caseda, who agreed. Santoses and Casedas signed a document, involving the
sale of the house with conditions that the Casedas will pay the balance of the mortgage,
real estate taxes and the electric and water bills to which the Casedas complied with.
Upon knowing the Casedas lacked the means to pay the remaining amortizations of the
loan, the Santoses repossessed the property and collected the rentals from the tenants.
Carmen approached the Santoses and offered to pay the balance of the purchased price
but the latter rejected as they demanded a higher price.
Issue
Whether or not the Casedas can ask for the rescission of the contract when the
Santoses repossessed the property.
Held
The case involves a contract to sell. There was no transfer of ownership to the
Casedas since they did not make the full payment of the purchase price. The act of
repossession by the Santoses was a mere act of enforcing the contract not rescinding it.
46. CENTRAL PHILIPPINE UNIVERSITY vs. CA, G.R. NO. 112230. July 17, 1995
Statement of Facts
In 1939, the late Don Ramon Lopez was a member of the board of trustees of Central

Philippine University when he executed a donation to the school, stating that the land
must be for exclusive use of a medical college, said college shall not be sold, transferred
or conveyed to any third party and the said land shall be called Ramon Lopez Campus
and any income from that land shall be put in the fund to be known as Ramon Lopez
Campus Fund. 50 years later, The heirs of Ramon Lopez filed an action to annul the
donation, stating the failure of the school to construct the medical college over the land.
RTC ruled in favor of respondents, which the CA affirmed.
Issue
Whether or not petitioner failed to comply the resolutory conditions.
Held
Under Art. 1181, on conditional obligations, the acquisition of rights as well the
extinguishment or loss of those already acquired shall depend upon the happening of the
event which constitutes the condition. Thus, when a person donates land to another on the
condition that the latter would build upon the land a school is such a resolutory one. If
there was no fulfillment with the condition such as what obtains in the instant case, the
donation may be revoked & all rights which the donee may have acquired shall be
deemed lost & extinguished.
53. ROBES FRANCISCO REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs.
CFI, G.R. NO. L- 41093, October 30, 1978
Statement of Facts
Petitioner agreed to sell to sell private Lolita Millan a parcel of land, payable
in installments. Millan complied with her obligation including interests and
expenses for registration of title and thereafter demanded the execution of the
final deed of sale and issuance of the transfer certificate of title over the lot. The deed
of sale was executed. However, after six months, petitioner failed to issue the transfer
certificate to Millan, hence, the latter filed a complaint for specific performance and
damages. The CFI rendered in favor of Millan and ordered the petitioner to issue the
corresponding transfer certificate and pay Millan with interest and pay nominal damages
and attorney fees.
Issue
Was Millan entitled to be indemnified for nominal damages?
Held
The facts show that the right of the vendee to acquire title to the lot bought by her
was violated by petitioner and this entitles her at the very least to nominal damages

though the Court held that the P20,000 award for damages is excessive and is to be be
reduced to P10,000.
54. GOLDEN VALLEY EXPLORATION, INC. vs. PINKIAN MINING COMPANY
and COPPER VALLEY, INC., G.R. NO. 190080, June 11, 2014
Statement of Facts
PMC entered into an operating agreement with GVEI, granting the latter full,
exclusive and irrevocable possession, use, occupancy, and control over the mining claims
for a period of 25 years. Years later, PMC extra-judicially rescinded the operating
agreement upon GVEIs violation of said operating agreement. GVEI contested that its
obligation to pay royalties to PMC arises only when the mining claims are placed in
commercial production.
Issue
Whether or not there was a valid rescission of the operating agreement
Held
Yes, there is. The inaction of GVEI for a period of more than seven years to operate
the areas that were already covered by a perfected mining lease contract and to acquire
the necessary permits and licenses amounted to a substantial breach of the operating
agreement. In reciprocal obligations, either party may rescind the contract upon the
others substantial breach of the obligations he had assumed thereunder. The basis
therefor is Article 1191 of the Civil Code.
58. SPOUSES RODOLFO BEROT AND LILIA BEROT vs. FELIPE C. SIAPNO,
G.R. NO. 188944, July 9, 2014
Statement of Facts
Petitioners/appellant along with Macaria Berot obtained a loan for
respondent/appellee in the sum of P250,000 payable within 1 year together with
annual interest rate of 2% until fully paid without any declaration that the
obligation was solidary. As a security for the loan, petitioners mortgaged a parcel
of land owned by one of them, Macaria Berot. Said owner of the lot died a year
after.
Because of the petitioners default, respondent filed an action for the
foreclosure of the mortgage and damages. Petitioners alleged that the contested
property was an inheritance and said property is their family home and the
mortgage is void.
Issue

Whether the intestate estate of Macaria Berot could be a proper party.

Held
It is true that upon the death of Macaria Berot, her legal personality ceased
and the contested lot was inherited to the petitioners. However, the contract of
loan was entered without any declaration that the obligation to pay as solidary.
Hence, as the obligation is deemed joint, the foreclosure of the property shall
proceed but would be answerable only to the extent of the liability of Macaria
Berot to the respondent.
67. RIVELISA REALTY, INC., vs. FIRST STA.
CORPORATION G.R. NO. 189618, January 15, 2014
Statement of Facts

CLARA

BUILDERS

Petitioner entered into a joint venture agreement (JVA) with respondent for
the construction and development of a residential subdivision. According to its terms,
respondent was to assume the 69% undeveloped portion of the project owned by
petitioner completing it in 12 months. After 2 months of construction, respondent ran out
of funds and petitioner was forced to shoulder part of the payment. Respondent
manifested its intent to back out of the JVA when petitioner refused to advance any more
funds until 60% of the project had been accomplished. Petitioner agreed and negotiated
with respondent to reimburse the latter for P3,000,000. Said amount remained unpaid
after several demands. Hence, the respondent petitioned for the rescission of the JVA for
breach of contract with damages. RTC ordered the payment only of damages and
attorney's fees and CA ruled in favor with the respondent, leading the petitioner to file a
petition for review.
Issue
Whether respondent is entitled to be compensated for the development
works it had accomplished on the project.
Held
Respondent is entitled to be compensated based on the principle of quantum meruit.
Under this principle, a contractor is allowed to recover the reasonable value of the thing
or services rendered despite the lack of a written contract, in order to avoid unjust
enrichment. Quantum meruit means that, in an action for work and labor, payment shall
be made in such amount as the plaintiff reasonably deserves.
74. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION vs. LUCMAN M. IBRAHIM et al., G.R.
No. 175863, February 18, 2015
Statement of Facts
Petitioner took possession of a parcel of land for the purpose of erecting a

hydroelectric power plant. The subject land, however, was a portion of private
estate owned by respondent Mangondato which was mistaken to be a vast tract
of public land. Upon discovering petitioner's occupation of said land, respondent
owner began demanding compensation. Both parties made series of
communications aimed to settle an amount of compensation and ultimately
failed. After two civil cases, petitioner was ordered to pay respondent
Mangondato for expropriation indemnity and rentals. However, in truth, said
parcel of land is owned by the respondents, the Maruhoms and Ibrahims, and
Mangondato is a trustee to that parcel of land. Said respondents filed complaint
to claim expropriation indemnity and rentals from petitioner.
Issue
Can the latter respondents claim expropriation indemnity and rentals from
petitioner?
Held
No, they can't. Petitioner already paid expropriation indemnity and rentals to
respondent Mangondato. Petitioner's obligation to pay those aforementioned payments is
already extinguished. The persona of respondent Mangondato is that of a "possessor of
credit," someone who is not the real creditor but appears, under the circumstances, to be
the real creditor. The law considers the payment to the possessor of credit as valid even
as against the real creditor taking into account the good faith of the debtor.
75. AZCONA vs. JAMANDRE, G.R. No. L- 30597
Statement of Facts
Petitioner and respondent entered into a lease contract for a parcel of land
owned by petitioner. The rental stipulated therein was P7,200.00 but payment
being acknowledged in the receipt was P7,000.00 only, yet it was not mentioned
in the receipt of the discrepancy and, on the contrary, the payment was
acknowledged "as per contract".
Issue
Whether an irregularity in the performance of a contract which is known by
the obligee upon its compliance tantamount to a breach of contract.
Held
Art. 1235 states that when the obligee accepts the performance, knowing its
incompleteness or irregularity, and without expressing any protest or objection,
the obligation is deemed fully complied with.
76. J. M Tuason & Co., INC vs. JAVIER, NO. L-28569, February 27, 1970

Statement of Facts
Petitioner and respondent entered into a contract to sell, transfer and convey
to the respondent a parcel of land on monthly installments. Respondent complied
with her obligation for 8 years and then subsequently defaulted in the payment of
the installments. 2 years after, petitioner rescinded their contract and respondent
failed to vacate said land. In a case filed to the court, the respondent admitted
she defaulted in the payment of the installments due to unforeseen
circumstances and she is willing to pay all installments in arrears. The lower court
declared that the contract to sell has not yet rescinded and ordered the
respondent to pay all the amounts due the petitioner and to transfer the title to
the defendant upon payment.
Issue
Whether the lower court erred in its judgment in declaring the contract
subsisting.
Held
No, the court did not. Petitioner has not been denied substantial justice, for,
according to Art. 1234 of the Civil Code: "If the obligation has been substantially
performed in good faith, the obligor may recover as though there had been a strict and
complete fulfillment, less damages suffered by the obligee."
80. PONCE vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. NO. L- 49494
May 31, 1979
Statement of Facts
Private respondent Afable along with Mendoza and Dio executed a
promissory note in favor of the petitioner with no interest within two months. Upon
the failure of the debtors to comply with the terms of the promissory note,
petitioner filed a complaint for the recovery of the principal sum plus interest and
damages. RTC ruled in favor of the petitioner and that the obligation is joint among the
private respondent, Mendoza and Dio. Private respondent appealed to the CA and
argued that the contract involved the payment of US dollars and was illegal. CA reversed
the decision of RTC.
Issue
Whether an obligation to pay in currency not the legal tender in the
Philippines will render such obligation extinguished.
Held
No. What is prohibited by RA No. 529 is the payment of an obligation in dollars,

meaning that a creditor cannot oblige the debtor to pay him in dollars, even if the loan
were given in said currency. In such a case, the indemnity to be allowed should be
expressed in Philippine currency on the basis of the current rate of exchange at the time
of payment.